A Nested Case-Control Study of Lung Cancer Risk and Ionizing Radiation Exposure at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality among US nuclear facility workers

BACKGROUND

The risk of solid cancers from low-level protracted ionizing radiation is not well characterized. Nuclear workers provide valuable information on the effects of ionizing radiation in contemporary exposure scenarios relevant to workers and the public.

METHODS

We evaluated the association between penetrating ionizing radiation exposure and solid cancer mortality among a pooled cohort of nuclear workers in the USA, with extended follow-up to examine cancers with long latencies. This analysis includes 101 363 workers from five nuclear facilities, with 12 069 solid cancer deaths between 1944 and 2016. The association between cumulative equivalent dose measured in sieverts (Sv) and solid cancer subtypes were modelled as the excess relative rate per Sv (ERR Sv-1) using Cox regression.

RESULTS

For the association between ionizing radiation exposure and all solid cancer mortality we observed an elevated rate (ERR Sv-1=0.19; 95% CI: -0.10, 0.52), which was higher among a contemporary sub-cohort of workers first hired in 1960 or later (ERR Sv-1= 2.23; 95% CI: 1.13, 3.49). Similarly, we observed an elevated rate for lung cancer mortality (ERR Sv-1= 0.65; 95% CI: 0.09, 1.30) that was higher among contemporary hires (ERR Sv-1= 2.90; 95% CI: 1.00, 5.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Although concerns remain about confounding, measurement error and precision, this analysis strengthens the evidence base indicating there are radiogenic risks for several solid cancer types.

The United States Navy and Employees with Cancer: The Time for Change Is Now

ABSTRACT

The US Navy, including the US Marine Corps and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP), has a robust radiological protection and monitoring program meeting (and typically exceeding, in the name of conservatism) federal law requirements. The program covers the variety of ways in which the Navy produces and uses ionizing radiation and radioactive sources: in medicine, nuclear ship propulsion and repair, industrial and aircraft radiography, and myriad other unique uses in carrying out its vital mission. In executing these programs, thousands of people across the world are employed as active-duty Sailors and Marines, government civilians, and government contractors. These workers include physicians, reactor operators, radiation safety officers, and nuclear repair workers, to name but a few. The health protection standards for these workers are promulgated in the publicly available Navy Medicine P-5055 Radiation Health Protection Manual (NAVMED P-5055), published February 2011 with Change 2 published December 2022, and are applicable to Navy and Marine Corps and NNPP radiation protection programs. The NAVMED P-5055 outlines the individual medical requirements for those qualified and able to receive exposure to ionizing radiation as part of their duties and requires that "Radiation workers receive focused medical examinations to establish whether or not cancer is present which would medically disqualify a person from receiving occupational radiation exposure." Additionally, without scientific or medical basis, the NAVMED P-5055 requires disqualifying those employees who have a history of cancer, cancer therapy, radiation therapy including radiopharmaceuticals received for therapeutic purposes, or bone marrow suppression from drawing dosimetry, entering radiation areas, or handling radioactive material. This policy, which exists regardless of lifetime occupational radiation dose or projected future radiation dose, applies to all cancers except adequately treated basal cell carcinoma. The policy is not supported by relevant scientific and medical literature; does not align with reasonable professional ethical standards; does not conform to US Navy radiological training, which stipulates the assumed increased risk of developing cancer from Navy and Marine Corps and NNPP occupational radiation exposure is small; and removes critical leadership and mentoring capability from the workforce unnecessarily. This article discusses in detail (1) this policy and its ramifications to the Navy and Marine Corps and NNPP workforce and (2) recommendations, benefits, and impacts for the Navy and Marine Corps and NNPP to remove this policy and still maintain a robust radiation protection program.

The effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are the producers of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). Welding fumes have been classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in IARC Monograph 118; this assessment found sufficient evidence from studies in humans that welding fumes are a cause of lung cancer. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of WHO/ILO Joint Estimates on this burden of disease (if considered feasible).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

DATA SOURCES

We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CISDOC. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with occupational exposure to no (or low) welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. If studies reported odds ratios, these were converted to risk ratios (RRs). We combined all RRs using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. Subgroup (e.g., by WHO region and sex) and sensitivity analyses (e.g., studies judged to be of "high"/"probably high" risk of bias compared with "low"/"probably low" risk of bias) were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-one records from 40 studies (29 case control studies and 11 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising over 1,265,512 participants (≥22,761 females) in 21 countries in three WHO regions (Region of the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region). The exposure and outcome were generally assessed by job title or self-report, and medical or administrative records, respectively. Across included studies, risk of bias was overall generally probably low/low, with risk judged high or probably high for several studies in the domains for misclassification bias and confounding. Our search identified no evidence on the outcome of having trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 48 % (RR 1.48, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.70, 23 studies, 57,931 participants, I² 24 %; moderate quality of evidence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 27 % (RR 1.27, 95 % CI 1.04-1.56, 3 studies, 8,686 participants, I² 0 %; low quality of evidence). Our subgroup analyses found no evidence for difference by WHO region and sex. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for incidence and mortality of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" and "limited evidence of harmfulness", respectively. Occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring and dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. Producing estimates for the burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106089.

Nationwide lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: implementation and first results of the HUNCHEST screening program

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer (LC) kills more people than any other cancer in Hungary. Hence, there is a clear rationale for considering a national screening program. The HUNCHEST pilot program primarily aimed to investigate the feasibility of a population-based LC screening in Hungary, and determine the incidence and LC probability of solitary pulmonary nodules.

METHODS

A total of 1890 participants were assigned to undergo low-dose CT (LDCT) screening, with intervals of 1 year between procedures. Depending on the volume, growth, and volume doubling time (VDT), screenings were defined as negative, indeterminate, or positive. Non-calcified lung nodules with a volume > 500 mm³ and/or a VDT < 400 days were considered positive. LC diagnosis was based on histology.

RESULTS

At baseline, the percentage of negative, indeterminate, and positive tests was 81.2%, 15.1%, and 3.7%, respectively. The frequency of positive and indeterminate LDCT results was significantly higher in current smokers (vs. non-smokers or former smokers; p < 0.0001) and in individuals with COPD (vs. those without COPD, p < 0.001). In the first screening round, 1.2% (n = 23) of the participants had a malignant lesion, whereas altogether 1.5% (n = 29) of the individuals were diagnosed with LC. The overall positive predictive value of the positive tests was 31.6%. Most lung malignancies were diagnosed at an early stage (86.2% of all cases).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of key characteristics, our prospective cohort study appears consistent to that of comparable studies. Altogether, the results of the HUNCHEST pilot program suggest that LDCT screening may facilitate early diagnosis and thus curative-intent treatment in LC.

KEY POINTS

• The HUNCHEST pilot study is the first nationwide low-dose CT screening program in Hungary. • In the first screening round, 1.2% of the participants had a malignant lesion, whereas altogether 1.5% of the individuals were diagnosed with lung cancer. • The overall positive predictive value of the positive tests in the HUNCHEST screening program was 31.6%.

The Risk of Cancer from CT Scans and Other Sources of Low-Dose Radiation: A Critical Appraisal of Methodologic Quality

INTRODUCTION

Concern exists that radiation exposure from computerized tomography (CT) will cause thousands of malignancies. Other experts share the same perspective regarding the risk from additional sources of low-dose ionizing radiation, such as the releases from Three Mile Island (1979; Pennsylvania USA) and Fukushima (2011; Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan) nuclear power plant disasters. If this premise is false, the fear of cancer leading patients and physicians to avoid CT scans and disaster responders to initiate forced evacuations is unfounded.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This investigation provides a quantitative evaluation of the methodologic quality of studies to determine the evidentiary strength supporting or refuting a causal relationship between low-dose radiation and cancer. It will assess the number of higher quality studies that support or question the role of low-dose radiation in oncogenesis.

METHODS

This investigation is a systematic, methodologic review of articles published from 1975-2017 examining cancer risk from external low-dose x-ray and gamma radiation, defined as less than 200 millisievert (mSv). Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors performed a search of the PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Methodologies of selected articles were scored using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and a tool identifying 11 lower quality indicators. Manuscript methodologies were ranked as higher quality if they scored no lower than seven out of nine on the NOS and contained no more than two lower quality indicators. Investigators then characterized articles as supporting or not supporting a causal relationship between low-dose radiation and cancer.

RESULTS

Investigators identified 4,382 articles for initial review. A total of 62 articles met all inclusion/exclusion criteria and were evaluated in this study. Quantitative evaluation of the manuscripts' methodologic strengths found 25 studies met higher quality criteria while 37 studies met lower quality criteria. Of the 25 studies with higher quality methods, 21 out of 25 did not support cancer induction by low-dose radiation (P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

A clear preponderance of articles with higher quality methods found no increased risk of cancer from low-dose radiation. The evidence suggests that exposure to multiple CT scans and other sources of low-dose radiation with a cumulative dose up to 100 mSv (approximately 10 scans), and possibly as high as 200 mSv (approximately 20 scans), does not increase cancer risk.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Dosimetry Used in Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer

BACKGROUND

A monograph systematically evaluating recent evidence on the dose-response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk required a critical appraisal of dosimetry methods in 26 potentially informative studies.

METHODS

The relevant literature included studies published in 2006-2017. Studies comprised case-control and cohort designs examining populations predominantly exposed to sparsely ionizing radiation, mostly from external sources, resulting in average doses of no more than 100 mGy. At least two dosimetrists reviewed each study and appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the dosimetry systems used, including assessment of sources and effects of dose estimation error. An overarching concern was whether dose error might cause the spurious appearance of a dose-response where none was present.

RESULTS

The review included 8 environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational studies that varied in properties relative to evaluation criteria. Treatment of dose estimation error also varied among studies, although few conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Six studies appeared to have known or suspected biases in dose estimates. The potential for these biases to cause a spurious dose-response association was constrained to three case-control studies that relied extensively on information gathered in interviews conducted after case ascertainment.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for spurious dose-response associations from dose information appeared limited to case-control studies vulnerable to recall errors that may be differential by case status. Otherwise, risk estimates appeared reasonably free of a substantial bias from dose estimation error. Future studies would benefit from a comprehensive evaluation of dose estimation errors, including methods accounting for their potential effects on dose-response associations.

Evaluation of Confounding and Selection Bias in Epidemiological Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation

BACKGROUND

Low-dose, penetrating photon radiation exposure is ubiquitous, yet our understanding of cancer risk at low doses and dose rates derives mainly from high-dose studies. Although a large number of low-dose cancer studies have been recently published, concern exists about the potential for confounding to distort findings. The aim of this study was to describe and assess the likely impact of confounding and selection bias within the context of a systematic review.

METHODS

We summarized confounding control methods for 26 studies published from 2006 to 2017 by exposure setting (environmental, medical, or occupational) and identified confounders of potential concern. We used information from these and related studies to assess evidence for confounding and selection bias. For factors in which direct or indirect evidence of confounding was lacking for certain studies, we used a theoretical adjustment to determine whether uncontrolled confounding was likely to have affected the results.

RESULTS

For medical studies of childhood cancers, confounding by indication (CBI) was the main concern. Lifestyle-related factors were of primary concern for environmental and medical studies of adult cancers and for occupational studies. For occupational studies, other workplace exposures and healthy worker survivor bias were additionally of interest. For most of these factors, however, review of the direct and indirect evidence suggested that confounding was minimal. One study showed evidence of selection bias, and three occupational studies did not adjust for lifestyle or healthy worker survivor bias correlates. Theoretical adjustment for three factors (smoking and asbestos in occupational studies and CBI in childhood cancer studies) demonstrated that these were unlikely to explain positive study findings due to the rarity of exposure (eg, CBI) or the relatively weak association with the outcome (eg, smoking or asbestos and all cancers).

CONCLUSION

Confounding and selection bias are unlikely to explain the findings from most low-dose radiation epidemiology studies.

Mesothelioma mortality within two radiation monitored occupational cohorts

Purpose: The risk of mesothelioma, including cancers of the pleura and peritoneum, was examined within two large cohorts of workers monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation. Methods and materials: Mortality was assessed among 253,632 workers routinely monitored for external radiation, including 30,724 industrial radiographers (IR) at shipyards, 142,583 workers at nuclear power plants (NPP), and 83,441 IR who had not worked at an NPP or shipyard. Follow-up was from 1969 through 2011. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed; observed numbers of deaths from mesothelioma (including cancers of the pleura and peritoneum) and asbestosis were compared with numbers expected based on age-, sex-, and calendar year-specific national mortality rates. Job history and quantitative asbestos exposure data were unavailable, but work at a shipyard was taken as a surrogate for the likelihood of exposure. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for mesothelioma in relation to estimated cumulative radiation exposure to the lung. Results: The mean duration of follow-up was 25.3 years (max 42 years). The mean cumulative lung dose was 28.6 mGy (7.3% > 250 mGy). Nearly 20% of the workers had died by 2011. A total of 421 mesothelioma deaths were found (75% occurring after 1999) with increased SMRs among workers monitored in shipyards (SMR 9.97; 95% CI 8.50-11.63) and for NPP workers (SMR 5.55; 95% CI 4.88-6.29), but not for IR who had not worked in shipyards (SMR 1.15; 95% CI 0.53-2.19). Likewise, deaths from asbestosis (n = 189) were also increased for shipyard and NPP workers (SMR = 18.1 and 9.2, respectively), but not among workers who never worked at a shipyard or NPP (SMR = 0.70; n = 1). Radiation dose to the lung was not associated with a statistically meaningful dose-response trend for mesothelioma in the combined cohorts (HR at 100 mGy = 1.10; 95% CI 0.96-1.27; p = .18), nor was mesothelioma risk associated with radiation exposure among IR who had not worked in a shipyard and assumed minimally exposed to asbestos. Conclusions: An elevated rate of death from mesothelioma was observed in two radiation-exposed occupational groups with potential for asbestos exposure. The increased risk of death from asbestosis, combined with little evidence of a rising trend in mesothelioma mortality with increasing radiation exposure, suggests that the mesothelioma (and asbestosis) excess in these workers was due to asbestos exposure in shipyards and power plants and not to occupational low-dose radiation.

Welding fumes and lung cancer: a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies

BACKGROUND

An estimated 110 million workers are exposed to welding fumes worldwide. Welding fumes are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic to humans (group 1), based on sufficient evidence of lung cancer from epidemiological studies.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies on welding or exposure to welding fumes and risk of lung cancer, accounting for confounding by exposure to asbestos and tobacco smoking.

METHODS

The literature was searched comprehensively in PubMed, reference lists of relevant publications and additional databases. Overlapping populations were removed. Meta-relative risks (mRRs) were calculated using random effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, Eggers's test and Begg's test.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (20 case-control, 25 cohort/nested case-control), which reduced to 37 when overlapping study populations were removed. For 'ever' compared with 'never' being a welder or exposed to welding fumes, mRRs and 95% CIs were 1.29 (1.20 to 1.39; I2=26.4%; 22 studies) for cohort studies, 1.87 (1.53 to 2.29; I2=44.1%; 15 studies) for case-control studies and 1.17 (1.04 to 1.38; I2=41.2%) for 8 case-control studies that adjusted for smoking and asbestos exposure. The mRRs were 1.32 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; I2=6.3%; 15 studies) among 'shipyard welders', 1.44 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.95; I2=35.8%; 3 studies) for 'mild steel welders' and 1.38 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.13; I2=68.1%; 5 studies) among 'stainless steel welders'. Increased risks persisted regardless of time period, geographic location, study design, occupational setting, exposure assessment method and histological subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the conclusion that exposure to welding fumes increases the risk of lung cancer, regardless of the type of steel welded, the welding method (arc vs gas welding) and independent of exposure to asbestos or tobacco smoking.

A comprehensive approach of the gender bias in occupational cancer epidemiology: A systematic review of lung cancer studies (2003-2014)

BACKGROUND

In occupational epidemiology, a male-centered perspective often predominates. We aimed to describe current research practices in terms of gender consideration at different stages of epidemiological studies.

METHODS

A systematic review of occupational lung cancer publications indexed in PubMed was conducted over the period 2003-2014. Articles were described according to the sex composition of their study sample.

RESULTS

In 243 studies, 7 (3%) were women-only, 101 (41%) were mixed, with a disproportionate men-to-women ratio (P50 = 3.5; P75 = 12.4). A shift was observed from mixed and unspecified source populations to men-only final samples. Our results also suggest implicit generalization of results from men-only studies, a lack of tests of interaction and often unjustified sex-adjustment for mixed studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The lower proportion of women in studies cannot be fully explained by their under-representation in the target populations, since there were large numbers of women among both potentially exposed workers and patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Review and evaluation of updated research on the health effects associated with low-dose ionising radiation

While radiation health risks at low doses have traditionally been estimated from high-dose studies, we have reviewed recent literature and concluded that the mechanisms of action for many biological endpoints may be different at low doses from those observed at high doses; that acute doses <100 mSv may be too small to allow epidemiological detection of excess cancers given the background of naturally occurring cancers; that low-dose radiation research should use holistic approaches such as systems-based methods to develop models that define the shape of the dose-response relationship; and that these results should be combined with the latest epidemiology to produce a comprehensive understanding of radiation effects that addresses both damage, likely with a linear effect, and response, possibly with non-linear consequences. Continued research is needed to understand how radiobiology and epidemiology advances should be used to effectively model radiation worker risks.

Summary of retrospective asbestos and welding fume exposure estimates for a nuclear naval shipyard and their correlation with radiation exposure estimates

In support of a nested case-control study at a U.S. naval shipyard, the results of the reconstruction of historical exposures were summarized, and an analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of historical exposures to potential chemical confounders. The nested case-control study (N = 4388) primarily assessed the relationship between lung cancer and external ionizing radiation. Chemical confounders considered important were asbestos and welding fume (as iron oxide fume), and the chromium and nickel content of welding fume. Exposures to the potential confounders were estimated by an expert panel based on a set of quantitatively defined categories of exposure. Distributions of the estimated exposures and trends in exposures over time were examined for the study population. Scatter plots and Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to assess the degree of association between the estimates of exposure to asbestos, welding fume, and ionizing radiation. Correlation coefficients were calculated separately for 0-, 15-, 20-, and 25-year time-lagged cumulative exposures, total radiation dose (which included medical X-ray dose) and occupational radiation dose. Exposed workers' estimated cumulative exposures to asbestos ranged from 0.01 fiber-days/cm(3) to just under 20,000 fiber-days/cm(3), with a median of 29.0 fiber-days/cm(3). Estimated cumulative exposures to welding fume ranged from 0.16 mg-days/m(3) to just over 30,000 mg-days/m(3), with a median of 603 mg-days/m(3). Spearman correlation coefficients between cumulative radiation dose and cumulative asbestos exposures ranged from 0.09 (occupational dose) to 0.47 (total radiation dose), and those between radiation and welding fume from 0.14 to 0.47. The estimates of relative risk for ionizing radiation and lung cancer were unchanged when lowest and highest estimates of asbestos and welding fume were considered. These results suggest a fairly large proportion of study population workers were exposed to asbestos and welding fume, that the absolute level of confounding exposure did not affect the risk estimates, and that weak relationships existed between monitored lifetime cumulative occupational radiation dose and asbestos or welding fume.

Inter-rater agreement for a retrospective exposure assessment of asbestos, chromium, nickel and welding fumes in a study of lung cancer and ionizing radiation

A retrospective exposure assessment of asbestos, welding fumes, chromium and nickel (in welding fumes) was conducted at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for a nested case-control study of lung cancer risk from external ionizing radiation. These four contaminants were included because of their potential to confound or modify the effect of a lung cancer-radiation relationship. The exposure assessment included three experienced industrial hygienists from the shipyard who independently assessed exposures for 3519 shop/job/time period combinations. A consensus process was used to resolve estimates with large differences. Final exposure estimates were linked to employment histories of the 4388 study subjects to calculate their cumulative exposures. Inter-rater agreement analyses were performed on the original estimates to better understand the estimation process. Although concordance was good to excellent (78-99%) for intensity estimates and excellent (96-99%) for frequency estimates, overall simple kappa statistics indicated only slight agreement beyond chance (kappa < 0.2). Unbalanced distributions of exposure estimates partly contributed to the weak observed overall inter-rater agreement. Pairwise weighted kappa statistics revealed better agreement between two of the three panelists (kappa = 0.19-0.65). The final consensus estimates were similar to the estimates made by these same two panelists. Overall welding fume exposures were fairly stable across time at the shipyard while asbestos exposures were higher in the early years and fell in the mid-1970s. Mean cumulative exposure for all study subjects was 520 fiber-days cc(-1) for asbestos and 1000 mg-days m(-3) for welding fumes. Mean exposure was much lower for nickel (140 microg-days m(-3)) and chromium (45 microg-days m(-3)). Asbestos and welding fume exposure estimates were positively associated with lung cancer in the nested case-control study. The radiation-lung cancer relationship was attenuated by the inclusion of these two confounders. This exposure assessment provided exposure estimates that aided in understanding of the lung cancer-radiation relationship at the shipyard.